Harte Posted March 4, 2013 #426 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The truth is, there's simply no evidence for mammals before the dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. The mammal-like" reptiles were more mammal-like than reptile-like, IIRC. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 7, 2013 #427 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) The truth is, there's simply no evidence for mammals before the dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. The mammal-like" reptiles were more mammal-like than reptile-like, IIRC. Harte You're right, they had more mammal-like caracteristics than reptile-like ones. This being said, it's still impossible for man and dinosaur to have coexisted. Edit : They call me the typo king...... Edited March 7, 2013 by TheSearcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracos Nightwolf Posted March 8, 2013 #428 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I don't think it happened... But ya gotta admit... It would be awesome if it were true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 8, 2013 #429 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I don't think it happened... But ya gotta admit... It would be awesome if it were true! Not so sure about that, considering we wouldn't be on top of the food chain any more. I'm fairly sure I would not appreciate becoming a dino snack LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justcalmebubba Posted March 10, 2013 #430 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) ~~~say fred, yeah barnn..you reckon wilma and betty will be wearing the new tiger dino miniskirts tonight at the bedrock bowl? yeah i hope so barn i need a new up skirt pic of wilma on my irokphone..... Edited March 10, 2013 by justcalmebubba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justcalmebubba Posted March 10, 2013 #431 Share Posted March 10, 2013 corse you know what i realy wonder about old mother eve had to be pritty damn besy exploreing sex and all with her ol man adam and her other son cain and seth since she was he only woman around at the time mustah been sum pritty stressed sex..fk or be eating by a wild beasty ..hummm wait scratch that ..wonder if thats when oh never mind i reckon eve was pritty horny explorative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erowin Posted March 12, 2013 #432 Share Posted March 12, 2013 No evidence has ever been found suggesting humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Dino and human bones have never been found in the same strata, or were dated to the same period. A belief in this is unfounded on any evidence at all and is more 'wishful thinking' in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrY Posted March 13, 2013 #433 Share Posted March 13, 2013 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 13, 2013 #434 Share Posted March 13, 2013 There are dinosaurs alive today, we co-exist now. Whether we did millions of years ago? We probably did, or our great ancestors did. We co-exist now? I would assume that depends of your definition of dinosaur. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrY Posted March 13, 2013 #435 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) The fact that people are still "debating" this is disheartening to say the least. Thousands of years of progress just washed down the drain. All because of Wikipedia And fundamental Christians. Edited March 13, 2013 by MrY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrY Posted March 13, 2013 #436 Share Posted March 13, 2013 And for those of you who refuse to accept the facts please go take an entry level course on evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 13, 2013 #437 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The fact that people are still "debating" this is disheartening to say the least. Thousands of years of progress just washed down the drain. All because of Wikipedia And fundamental Christians. I don't think WIkipedia is to blame for once. Fundamental Christians on the other hand.........much more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaentum Posted March 13, 2013 #438 Share Posted March 13, 2013 We co-exist now? I would assume that depends of your definition of dinosaur. Care to elaborate? I believe he is referring to crocodiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 13, 2013 #439 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I believe he is referring to crocodiles That's a debatable statement, as crocodiles are descendants of archosaurs, not dinosaurs. Some tend to be astonished to learn that entirely different kinds of reptiles once ruled the earth, tens of millions of years before dinosaurs. For 120 million years, give or take a few years, from the Carboniferous to the middle Triassic periods, terrestrial life was dominated by the pelycosaurs, archosaurs, and therapsids (the so-called "mammal-like reptiles") , not dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted March 16, 2013 Author #440 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Soft tissue found on dinosaur bones ..................any opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted March 16, 2013 #441 Share Posted March 16, 2013 My opinion is that it would probably be very chewy. Not unlike real jerky. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted March 16, 2013 #442 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I believe he is referring to crocodiles Birds, more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted March 17, 2013 #443 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Soft tissue found on dinosaur bones ..................any opinions? My opinion is that it would probably be very chewy. Not unlike real jerky. Harte Would it be as salty, though? I like salty. My forte is definitely not paleontology but a sample of fossilized soft tissue has been found. I wouldn't care to chew it. Source 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted March 17, 2013 #444 Share Posted March 17, 2013 My opinion is that it would probably be very chewy. Not unlike real jerky. Harte Oddly enough, at the our Association of Templars, Rosicrucians, Lizard-Men from Doctor Who and L'il Grey Aliens local 205* brunch this week, cloned Dinosaur soft issue was served. Traditionally, it's chased with a shot of unicorn tears. Only the anointed, part-time saviour descended from the Merovingians gets fresh dinosaur soft tissue. --Jaylemurph *Controlling your mind since 18 BCE. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted March 17, 2013 #445 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Would it be as salty, though? I like salty. My forte is definitely not paleontology but a sample of fossilized soft tissue has been found. I wouldn't care to chew it. Source So, crunchy then, eh? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted March 18, 2013 Author #446 Share Posted March 18, 2013 might have tasted just like chicken..... Some say chickens are last representatives of dinosaurs,but with a twist of faith now the mammals feed on them lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted March 20, 2013 #447 Share Posted March 20, 2013 So, crunchy then, eh? Harte In that case you better be a rock-eating gopher of some kind, otherwise I hope you have a great dentist, that could outfit you with teeth like the character Jaws in the bond movies. might have tasted just like chicken..... Some say chickens are last representatives of dinosaurs,but with a twist of faith now the mammals feed on them lol. Talk about harsh evolution, from velociraptor to chicken...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted March 20, 2013 #448 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Soft tissue found on dinosaur bones ..................any opinions? Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted March 20, 2013 Author #449 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really. Scientist Mary Schweitzer and her team had placed a fossilized T. rex bone fragment in an acidic demineralizing bath to study its components and let the process take its full course. If the fossil had been nothing but rock, the bath would have dissolved absolutely everything. Instead, the process left behind soft tissue. When analyzed, the tissue appeared to be the blood vessels, bone matrix and osteocytes (the cells that build bone) of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. For a full account of the study and the controversy that followed, read How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils? The soft tissue hadn't fossilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted March 20, 2013 #450 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Rare to find because soft tissue usually decays before fossilisation can take place - but under exceptional circumstances, even soft tissue can - and does - fossilise. Hence why we have found fossilised soft tissue. Simple really. Ain't seen ye 'round these parts lately, have we? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now